What does this all mean?

What is the difference between the government and the opposition then? Only one difference! The government has laws to use to impose its will while the opposition does not yet have laws to use to impose its will.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Freedom of the press

By LIM SUE GOAN

Translated by Soong Phui Jee, Sin Chew Daily

Malaysia has dropped from 141 to 143 out of 196 countries surveyed worldwide in the Freedom of the Press Index released by US-based Freedom House. It is categorised as "not free".

It shows that despite the efforts of several decades, Malaysia has not much improved in terms of press freedom.

After the national independence, freedom of the press has never been included in the government's plan of improvement due to political, racial and religious sensitivities. If there is a ranking for different fields, politics would top the list, followed by economy while freedom of the press would be ranked the bottom.

During the administration of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the press lacked freedom and not much improvement had been made in Tun Abdullah Badawi's era. We thought that policies would be relaxed after the 2008 general election but freedom of the press has not been included in the Key Performance Index (KPI), National Key Results Areas (NKRA), Government Transformation Plan (GTP) and Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

Our ranking is inconsistent with the status of a middle-income country. It is indeed shameful that Malaysia has been ranked below East Timor (77), the Philippines (93), Indonesia (108) and Cambodia (141) with relatively weaker economies.

There are three criteria to assess a country's freedom of the press:

1. Law and control: if there are many laws to control and restrain the media, the space of coverage will shrink. Media practitioners will naturally self-filter as they are fear of breaking the laws.

The government plans to amend the Printing Press and Publication Act but no action has yet been taken. However, the revised publications guidelines might control various information circulating on the Internet. If the law is tightened instead of relaxed, our ranking is likely to drop further next year.

If the Home and Information Communication and Culture Ministries plan to establish a national media advisory council so that the government is empowered to lead and restrain the media, the outlook for press freedom will be more gloomy.

2. The status of the media: in a country with a high degree of press freedom, the constitution, courts and government will protect the media and therefore, the media enjoy a high status. For example, President Richard Nixon was prompted to resign during the 1972 Watergate scandal.

In Malaysia, the mainstream media are controversial. They might be accused of being intervened by politics or becoming a racial camp, and lose their credibility and status.

It is a tragedy on the Press Freedom Day when National Union of Journalists (NUJ) President Hata Wahari was dismissed by the Utusan Melayu.

3. The quality of news: if the media become a day-book reporting only what people have said, it will be empty in terms of value.

The Los Angeles Times won the Pulitzer Prize gold medal for public service this year for revealing official corruption in Bell. In Malaysia, instead of corruption revealing reports, award winning reports are general news. Who is responsible for such a situation?

If Malaysia wishes to become an advanced high-income country in 2020, freedom of the press is absolutely essential. Without freedom of the press, we will never be categorised as a developed country and social justice will drift further and further away.

******************************************

That was what MySinchew wrote today. While I agree with what they said, I feel this matter needs to be looked at on a broader perspective.

For example, in the UK, we are not just talking about electoral reforms (by the way, later today I am going out to vote on a referendum to change the voting system), we are talking about political reforms. It is not enough to reform just the electoral system. The entire British political system needs reforming.

And this was why I joined the LibDem, to fight for political reforms (which means I am no longer eligible to join any Malaysian political party since they do not allow dual-party membership).

The same goes for ‘freedom of the press’. Our fight should not be just about freedom of the press but freedom of expression/speech, association, assembly and so on. Within this comes, of course, freedom of the press, one aspect of freedom of expression/speech, association, assembly and so on. In short, freedom of the press is the result of freedom of expression/speech, association, assembly and so on.

And that is what we do not have in Malaysia. Neither the government nor the opposition allows and respects freedom of expression/speech, association, assembly and so on.

We have so many laws that stifle all these freedoms. And the government enforces these laws with zeal. Of course, dissidents and those opposed to the government are on the receiving end of these laws. But this does not mean that those in the opposition are innocent victims of this repression and persecution. The opposition too does not tolerate what the government does not tolerate.

And this is where we see the hypocrisy of the whole thing. While we know that the government is bad and it does not pretend to be good (the excuse they give to stifle our freedoms is that Malaysians are not ready for absolute democracy and therefore must only be allowed ‘guided’ democracy to ensure we prevent further race riots), the opposition screams, rants and raves about not being allowed freedom of expression/speech, association, assembly and so on but will condemn those who do not agree with them.

What is the difference between the government and the opposition then? Only one difference! The government has laws to use to impose its will while the opposition does not yet have laws to use to impose its will.

I have given numerous interviews and talks over the last thirteen years since 1998. And I have given interviews and talks locally as well as overseas. I have spoken in universities, and to newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. And what I have said has been consistent to what I have written since the mid-1990s when Anwar Ibrahim was still in government and was the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia.

When I say anything unfavourable to the government that is hailed as my right to criticise an unfair, unjust and corrupt government. But when I say anything unfavourable to the opposition, that is vilified as an act of a Trojan horse, of someone who has been bought off, or that I am doing this because I have been bribed to do so by the government.

The bottom line is: say bad things about the government and you are an angel. Say bad things about the opposition and you are the devil.

That is the opposition understanding of freedom of expression/speech. And because of my TV3 interview I have lost many friends. They have turned against me because of my ‘crime’ of talking to TV3, never mind what I said to TV3 was the same thing as what I have been saying for ten years or more.

I suppose if these are my ‘friends’ then they were never real friends in the first place. They were ‘fair weather’ friends. So I doubt I have lost anything.

Oh, by the way, did you see the football game at Old Trafford last night? My wife and I were jumping up and down, cheering Manchester United on. (Manchester United 4 Schalke 1). We will certainly be watching the finals at Wembley on 28th May.

Actually, I was never interested in football when I used to live in Malaysia. Now that I live in Manchester I go to the Old Trafford to watch my team in action. Do you really think my TV3 interview was so that I can return to Malaysia? How stupid can you be! Hey, I may even give up my Malaysian citizenship just to prove I have no interest in returning to Malaysia, even if Pakatan Rakyat takes over the government.

What do you have to say about that now?